Torillian said:
mysteryman said:
The onus is on advertisers to do their job effectively. If overly-aggressive ads are losing them views, that's their fault.
It is akin to losing money for poor work.
|
The fact that they are losing views because of the overly-agressive ads isn't really the problem, it's how they are losing them. I don't think anyone has a problem with the free market idea that if you don't like what payment you're required to give for a service you can choose a different one. So if you don't like the advertisements on a site you can just go to a different one. What I don't agree with is you don't like the ads on a site so you just dcide to not see the ads but use the site's content anyway. If you don't agree with how much money a grocery store is charging for an apple then you can go to a different grocery store, but you can't just decide it's not worth that much money and take the apple without paying. Sure, you never signed a contract saying you'd view ads in order to get a site's content, but you never signed anything with the grocery store either.
|
I agree with the analogy, but disagree that it is an apt analogy.
With the supermarket, you pay the vendor directly. Disagreeance with the vendors prices can be shown by directly denying the vendor your money and shopping elsewhere.
For internet sites, the vendor's (site owners) are paid by the advertisors, who in turn generate income based on your view. If you have an issue with the advertising, simply "shopping elsewhwere" sends the message that the site itself is undesirable. How do you let the site owner know that you enjoy their site, but feel the advertising is too aggressive/ performance hindering/ potentially virus-laden?
A closer analogy (though I still don't think perfect) would be a parking lot operated by a third party. If you disagree with the parking lot prices/management, but still require access to the building it is attached to, you can find another way to get there that doesn't profit the parking lot company.
